Welsh Water Habitats Regulations Assessment of Draft Water Resources Management Plan 2013 Draft Assessment of Preferred Options AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited March 2013 Third-Party Disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by AMEC at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. AMEC excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability. Document Revisions No. Details Date 1 Draft for client review 22.02.13 2 Draft for client review 21.03.13 3 Consultation version 26.03.13 © AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3 iv © AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3 v Contents 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Water resource planning 1 1.2 Habitats Regulations Assessment 1 1.3 This Report 2 2. HRA of Water Resource Management Plans 3 2.1 Guidance 3 2.2 Overview 3 2.3 Key issues for HRA of the WRMP 4 2.3.1 Understanding the likely outcomes of the WRMP 4 2.3.2 Sustainability reductions and the Review of Consents 6 2.3.3 Uncertainty and determining significant or adverse effects 8 2.3.4 Mitigating uncertainty and ‘down the line’ assessment 10 3. Feasible Options Assessment 12 3.1 Overview 12 3.2 Data Collection 13 3.2.1 WRMP Options 13 3.2.2 European Sites 13 3.3 Approach to feasible options 13 3.3.1 ‘Screening’ of the unconstrained list 13 3.3.2 ‘Screening’ of feasible options 13 3.3.3 Key assumptions 16 3.3.4 Avoidance measures and incorporated mitigation 17 4. Summary of Feasible Options Assessment 18 4.1 Feasible demand-side and leakage reduction options 18 4.2 Feasible supply-side options 18 5. Preferred Options Assessment 29 5.1 Approach 29 5.1.1 Assessment 29 5.1.2 In-combination Effects 29 © AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3 vi 5.1.3 Key assumptions, avoidance measures and incorporated mitigation 31 5.2 Preferred options 31 5.3 North Eryri/ Ynys Môn 32 5.3.1 Overview 32 5.3.2 8001.23 – Connect Cefni to Alaw Reservoir 32 5.3.3 8001.3 – Connect Afon Rhythallt to Cwellyn WTW 32 5.4 Tywyn Aberdyfi 38 5.4.1 Overview 38 5.4.2 8021.3 New abstraction from Afon Dysynni at Pont y Garth (to Pen y Bont WTW) 38 5.4.3 8021.6 Transfer from new Abergynolwyn WTW 42 5.5 Brecon Portis 45 5.5.1 Option 8108.4 - Additional Releases from Usk Reservoir 45 5.5.2 Option 8108.7 – Penycrug to Portis transfer main renewal 49 5.6 Pembrokeshire 50 5.6.1 Overview 50 5.6.2 Option 8206.11 – Transfer Water from Bolton Hill WTW to Preseli WTW 50 5.6.3 Option 8206.18 - Import from Tywi Gower to Pembrokeshire 54 5.7 In-combination Effects 58 5.7.1 ‘In Combination’ Effects between Preferred Options 58 5.7.2 In-combination Effects - Other Plans 62 5.7.3 In-combination Effects – Other Projects 63 5.8 Summary of Assessment 64 6. Conclusions 68 6.1 ‘Strategic Water Availability’ - the WRMP and the Review of Consents 68 6.2 Assessment of Preferred Options 69 6.3 Conclusion 70 Table 2.1 Welsh Water abstraction licences identified for modification under the Review of Consents 8 Table 3.1 Summary of significance assessment criteria 15 Table 4.1 Feasible options 19 Table 4.1 (cont’d.) Feasible options 20 Table 4.2 Additional feasible options (post feasible options assessment, December 2012) 20 Table 4.3 Summary of feasible options assessment 21 Table 4.3 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment 22 Table 4.3 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment 23 Table 4.3 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment 24 Table 4.3 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment 25 Table 4.3 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment 26 © AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3 vii Table 4.3 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment 27 Table 4.3 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment 28 Table 5.1 Preferred Options 31 Table 5.2 Screening summary for Option 8001.3 33 Table 5.3 Screening summary for Option 8021.3 39 Table 5.4 Screening summary for Option 8021.6 42 Table 5.5 Screening summary for Option 8108.04 46 Table 5.6 Screening summary for Option 8108.04 49 Table 5.7 Screening summary for Option 8206.11 51 Table 5.8 Screening summary for Option 8206.1 54 Table 5.9 Summary of Possible Inter-Option ‘In Combination’ Effects (NEYM = North Eryri / Ynys Môn; TA = Tywyn Aberdyfi; BP = Brecon Portis; Pembs. = Pembrokeshire) 59 Table 5.10 Summary of Effects and Avoidance Measures 65 Table 5.10 (cont’d) Summary of Effects and Avoidance Measures 66 Table 5.10 (cont’d) Summary of Effects and Avoidance Measures 67 Appendix A Figures Appendix B European sites and associated protected areas Appendix C European sites and interest features Appendix D Interest feature abbreviations Appendix E Water resource dependent interest features Appendix F Condition assessments Appendix G Feasible options assessment summary Appendix H Plans and Strategies Considered for Possible ‘In Combination’ Effects Appendix I Summary of ‘in combination’ assessment with other strategic plans Appendix J Standard avoidance measures and best-practice © AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Water resource planning All water companies in England and Wales must set out their strategy for managing water resources across their supply area over the next 25 years. This statutory requirement is defined under the Water Act 2003, which also sets out how water companies should publish a Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) for consultation, setting out how they will balance supply and demand over the 25 year planning period. The WRMP is also linked to other water resource planning and policy documents, including the Drought Plan, Water Efficiency Strategy and Leakage Strategy. The WRMP process identifies potential shortages in the future availability of water and sets out the possible solutions required to maintain the balance between water available and future demand for water. The process initially reviews as many potential solutions as possible (the ‘unconstrained list’ of options) to identify ‘feasible’ options for each Water Resource Zone (WRZ) where deficits are predicted. These ‘feasible’ options are reviewed according to an industry standard methodology to identify ‘preferred options’ to resolve any supply deficits in relation to financial, environmental and social costing. This preferred list is based on standard assessment methodologies set out in the WRMP, the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment. Options to resolve deficits or predicted deficits can be broadly categorised as follows: • Production and Resource Management - options that vary yield (e.g. new abstractions) or which reduce/ modify usage from where it is abstracted to where it enters the network; • Customer-side Management - options which reduce customers’ consumption; • Distribution Management - options within or affecting the distribution network, such as, leakage reduction or new distribution pipelines. 1.2 Habitats Regulations Assessment Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (the ‘Habitats Regulations’) requires that competent authorities assess the potential impacts of plans and programmes on the Natura 2000 network of European protected sites1 to determine whether there will be any ‘likely significant effects’ (LSE) on any European site as a result of the Plan’s implementation (either on its own or ‘in combination’ with other plans or projects); and, if so, whether these effects will result in any adverse effects on the site’s integrity. 1 Strictly, a European Site is any classified Special Protection Area (SPA) or any Special Area of Conservation (SAC) from the point at which the European Commission and the UK Government agree the site as a ‘Site of Community Importance’ (SCI). However, the provisions of the Habitats Regulations and Article 4(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC (the ‘new wild birds directive’) are also applied (respectively) to candidate SACs (cSACs) and potential SPAs (pSPAs); and as a matter of Government policy for possible SACs (pSACs) and listed Ramsar Sites for the purpose of considering development proposals affecting them (TAN 5 para. 5.1.3)). As such, pSPAs, pSACs and Ramsar Sites must also be considered by any HRA. Within this report “European site” is used as a generic term for all of the above designated sites. Additional information on European site designations is provided in Appendix A. © AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3 2 The process by which the impacts of a Plan or Programme are assessed against the conservation objectives of a European site is known as Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)2. WRMPs are not explicitly included within this legislation, although Natural England (NE) and the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) have previously stated that this requirement should extend to plans such as the WRMP. The Habitats Regulations require every Competent Authority, in the exercise of any of its functions, to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive.